Udhaynidhi’s Sanatan Dharma Remarks: A Calculated Strategy Or A Political Miscalculation?

The DMK leader, Udhaynidhi Stalin’s remarks on Sanatan Dharma have sparked a political uproar in the country. Udhaynidhi, son of Chief Minister MK Stalin and the State Minister for Youth Welfare and Sports Development, recently asserted that Sanatan Dharma should not only be opposed but “eradicated”. He reportedly went further, likening Sanatan Dharma to malaria and dengue. The BJP has sought to turn it into a significant issue, while leaders of the newly formed INDIA alliance grapple for a consistent defence.

Delhi police have registered a complaint against Udhaynidhi. However, he remains steadfast in his comments, emphasizing that he was referencing all religions, not just Hinduism. Chief Minister MK Stalin has provided a more nuanced response, suggesting his son was not attacking any specific religion but rather condemning discriminatory practices against Dalits, tribals, and women under the guise of religion. The Congress Party underscored its commitment to communal harmony and respect for all religions, consistent with the spirit of the constitution.

Sanatan Dharma has frequently found itself at the center of political debates in India. Although Udhaynidhi referenced EV Ramaswamy Periyar and Dr. BR Ambedkar to support his statement, many consider it in poor taste. His party MP A Raja added fuel to the fire by comparing Sanatan Dharma to leprosy and AIDS. Leaders from the RJD’s Bihar Unit have made similar contentious remarks, prompting personal retaliations against opposition leaders from some BJP ministers and leaders. This has hindered any constructive dialogue on the topic. What began as a spark in the south has now spread to northern and western political arenas.

Neither Udhaynidhi Stalin nor other leaders grabbing headlines with their remarks are oblivious to the political repercussions. Regardless of how misguided their comments on Sanatana Dharma might appear, these leaders are acutely aware of the potential impact of their words. Notably, Udhaynidhi made his contentious statement at an event named the “Sanatana Dharma Eradication Conference.” It’s believed that the event aimed to provoke Hindus, and Udhaynidhi’s remarks were aligned with this intention. This strategy appears to be an effort to reinforce the Dravidian identity in Tamil Nadu. By critiquing Sanatana Dharma, Udhaynidhi indirectly confronts Brahminical traditions and Hindu orthodoxy, countering the rising sway of the BJP and its Hindu nationalist stance in Tamil Nadu.

Udhaynidhi’s remarks, coupled with the BJP’s response, underscore the ongoing tension between Dravidian identity and Hindu nationalism in Tamil Nadu. They also highlight the continued ideological and political evolution within the state, with notable political implications stemming from this ideological clash.

Regarding the India Alliance, its primary objective is to counter the BJP. Considering this, the comments about the eradication of Sanatana Dharma, arguably akin to the BJP’s core political agenda, by the son of a sitting chief minister within the alliance, merely months before the general elections are striking. Joining him in support, the son of Mallikarjun Kharge, the Congress president and a major player in the alliance, contends that any religion fostering division based on caste or community and endorsing inequality should be challenged.

In a nation where approximately 80% of its citizens follow Sanatana Dharma, such rhetoric can be perceived as a daring political move. This might not bode well for the India Alliance. Conventional wisdom would suggest that voters wouldn’t favor leaders seemingly hostile towards Hindus and Indian civilization. However, could this narrative resonate in areas with pronounced anti-Hindu sentiments?

It’s evident that the DMK remains steadfast in its critical stance on Hindu beliefs. The India Alliance’s situation echoes the challenges faced by the Maha Vikas Aghadi in Maharashtra until a few days ago when Rahul Gandhi vocally criticized Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. While this approach might not have affected the national opposition, it had become central to Maharashtra’s political discourse. The Sanatana controversy is analogous: it could bolster the DMK’s position in Tamil Nadu but potentially shake the foundations of the India Alliance on a national scale. The pressing question remains – are the parties within the India Alliance prepared to align with a party that consistently critiques Hindus and their values, going so far as to call for the abolition of Sanatana Dharma, a tenet that has anchored India’s civilization for millennia?

Conversely, the BJP finds itself in a precarious situation. While it vigorously promotes its narrative, the party treads lightly when criticizing Udhaynidhi’s comments, given the implications on Ambedkar and Periyar. This approach poses a risk of alienating a portion of the Dalit and OBC electorate, which could be detrimental ahead of the big electoral season.

As the nation edges closer to the Lok Sabha elections, such strategic and societal debates must be viewed as political tools. These tools can sway public opinion, framing key issues that mold the collective mindset. Throughout history, such tactics have been instrumental for political parties aiming to navigate the tumultuous waters of electoral politics.